Carefully aiming cone effects [Archive] - Wizards Community

Carefully aiming cone effects [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Jason Snyder
05-09-05, 08:38 AM Our warrior was knocked prone and had a number of wolf-type creatures either on him or around him. The wizard wanted to cast color spray on the wolves. The prone warrior, logically, complained that he didn't want to be zapped by color spray. So, the wizard and the warrior start arguing with the DM that the wizard should be able to angle the cone in such a way that it angles up in the air, clipping the wolves and avoiding the prone warrior. The DM didn't buy it and I (a fellow player) agreed with the DM.

Thinking about it though, I'm not so sure. It's probably fairly common to aim a cone horizontally (i.e. turning it left/right) so that the edges of the cone clip the bad guys, while avoiding the friendlies. This is theoretically the same thing as trying to shoot wolves off a prone guy, the only difference being the distance between the good guys and the bad guys.

1) If a character is prone, should one be able to "shoot over" him with a cone spell? Save, but with a bonus? Or just straight up save?

2) While the rules might permit it, is it logical (oh no, that word!) that one can point a cone out at nothing, so that the edges of the cone can carefully clip the enemies in a combat?

What do you folks think?
Bopple
05-09-05, 08:45 AM The basic unit of combat area is a square.
Therefore, you cannot shoot over him, without excluding some wolves' squares out.
Moon-Lancer
05-09-05, 10:27 AM i think its an awsome idea. Although wolves are probably not the best to use this against. Wolves are pritty low to the ground as it is. I think this would have more of a chance flying if the wiz is attacking creatures at least 5 feet tall.

I might make the wiz make some sort of dex check using his bab. But this is all on the fly house rule stuff.
Nom
05-09-05, 10:30 AM In general, no. RAW, cones can only be aimed oriented at 90 degrees or 45 degrees to the battle grid. While I would allow a wizard to aim a cone at an arbitrary airborne target, I would not allow precision targeting of the kind suggested for targetting a wolf in the same square as a prone creature.
Seeker95
05-09-05, 11:51 AM I'm with Nom on this one.
What sounds cool and "reasonable" doesn't always translate well into game mechanics.
Keep the game mechanics as primary, since screwing around with them tends to lead to munchkin abuse-attempts.
tarkin
05-09-05, 12:12 PM Are you also not going to allow Humans to fire arrows over the heads of the Halfing in front of them? It seems to me to be basically the same thing.

I personally would rule as follows:

1) You can not affect 1/2 a cube. Either the cube is fully affected or not at all.

2) The attack must start in a cube touching you. But that means that if you are 5' 1" (or taller), you can start the attack in mid air, in the cube at your head's level but 5ft ahead. This would in effect miss any small creature that was 5ft in front of you, but could descend (or not descend), depending on how exactly you pointed it.

This allows some aiming, but not the major abuses. Your allies might drop Prone to avoid an attack, but then they would be PRONE.

For the prone with beast case, I would let you do it only if the Beast was Large (tall)
stamhaven
05-09-05, 12:40 PM I'm with tarkin on this one and use 5' cubes as lines of demarcation height wise. Aiming cones up also brings up if you consider the cone spells actual cones or just fans (flat wedges). If it was against standing humans I'd allow it but make the angle much narrower. To simulate aiming it more realisticly you aim the middle of the cone not with the edge, I use templates and make casters pick a square to center on beofre laying it down so they can't fine tune the area and waste valuable table time optimizing it. Something where you maintain the cone I would give much more control over the edge of detection spells and other things where you can see and adust.
Jason Snyder
05-09-05, 02:05 PM I'm with you guys, actually. The question came up during the debate of what if you have to shoot up at a target - say a bad guy on a ledge high above you. If I understand the RAW, the elevation does not enter into it and the people between the caster and the villain, but below the villain would still get hit. While I'm not one to argue logic over rules, it just seems a bit extreme if you couldn't shoot at (for instance) a flying target without the cone hitting your friends who are on the ground with you.
DungeonMaster
05-09-05, 05:04 PM I disagree with the others here to some extent. A cone spell is a cone, you should be able to aim it at any angle, regardless of the idea of squares in combat.
If you aim a cone up at its inclination angle it would be effectively a line, perhaps a thick line if the cone is wide.
Standardized areas on a grid are useful to the game but let's keep in mind it is a cone.
Saving throws might be adjusted by +2 if it's easier to escape the area of effect.
If a red dragon swoops from above and it aims it's breath weapon directly down, that's a circular area of destruction on the grid, like a fireball.

In the particular case of wolves and a prone fighter, those had better be damn big wolves if you're not expecting to hit the fighter. I agree with Tarkin that Large (tall) would be required to do it and not harm the fighter at all. ( Large (tall) is a 3rd edition designator that doesn't exist in 3.5).
If the player really wanted to risk it then I would allow it only with a ranged attack roll (unmodified AC of the wolves, he's trying to clip them effectively) and I'de adjust the saves of the wolves as well.
Vaelan
05-09-05, 05:26 PM I allow things like this (this isn't a videogame, you can shoot a cone any direction you **** well please) with a successful Spellcraft check DC 15-25 + Spell Level. The base would depend on how difficult the aiming is. The player must also provide reasoning as to why they would be able to aim the spell to avoid the Fighter.

In this case, I would say it would be about a 20+SL since the wolves are pretty close to the ground as well.

In this case, I would say if you failed the check by more than 5, you aimed too high and thus affected nothing. If you failed the check by 5 or less, you aimed it too low and hit the Fighter along with the wolves. And since I'm a mean, mean person: if you fail the check by 10 or more, you accidentally affect yourself with the spell.
farscapesg1
05-09-05, 07:32 PM I don't see a problem with angling the cone to only affect the wolves. Of course, I tend to look at the simpler answer and tell the fighter to close his eyes. If he can't see the color spray (blinded) then it can't affect him right ;)
Colmarr
05-09-05, 08:59 PM DungeonMaster, just a quick post to let you know that Large (tall) still exists in v3.5. It has space of 10x10 and reach of 10ft (eg. Ogre). Large (long) has space 10x10 but reach of only 5ft (eg. Dire Wolf).

As for the cone question, I would allow it with the spellcraft check. I treat cone spells as a circular pyramid rather than a two-dimensional plane, so the wizard would likely only hit one wolf anyway...
Nyat
05-09-05, 09:04 PM Nobody has actually used a cone spell yet in my group, but I'm guessing we would allow it to be targeted up, since we allow fireballs and other spells to be used in such a fashion. If you can aim a cone up to hit a flying target, why shouldn't you be able to aim it upwards (or at an angle) in other situations? Although now that I look at it thats probably not RAW, but meh, thats how we would do it :D
IceFractal
05-10-05, 05:06 AM I'd say that you can aim a cone at any angle, any other ruling seems silly, and too much like the bad side of video games (I like them, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the arbitrary limitations).

However, the D&D system is still based around 5' cubes, so unless you want to try to houserule it, then any cube that the cone touches is fully affected.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jason Snyder 05-09-05, 08:38 AM	Our warrior was knocked prone and had a number of wolf-type creatures either on him or around him. The wizard wanted to cast color spray on the wolves. The prone warrior, logically, complained that he didn't want to be zapped by color spray. So, the wizard and the warrior start arguing with the DM that the wizard should be able to angle the cone in such a way that it angles up in the air, clipping the wolves and avoiding the prone warrior. The DM didn't buy it and I (a fellow player) agreed with the DM. Thinking about it though, I'm not so sure. It's probably fairly common to aim a cone horizontally (i.e. turning it left/right) so that the edges of the cone clip the bad guys, while avoiding the friendlies. This is theoretically the same thing as trying to shoot wolves off a prone guy, the only difference being the distance between the good guys and the bad guys. 1) If a character is prone, should one be able to "shoot over" him with a cone spell? Save, but with a bonus? Or just straight up save? 2) While the rules might permit it, is it logical (oh no, that word!) that one can point a cone out at nothing, so that the edges of the cone can carefully clip the enemies in a combat? What do you folks think?
Bopple 05-09-05, 08:45 AM	The basic unit of combat area is a square. Therefore, you cannot shoot over him, without excluding some wolves' squares out.
Moon-Lancer 05-09-05, 10:27 AM	i think its an awsome idea. Although wolves are probably not the best to use this against. Wolves are pritty low to the ground as it is. I think this would have more of a chance flying if the wiz is attacking creatures at least 5 feet tall. I might make the wiz make some sort of dex check using his bab. But this is all on the fly house rule stuff.
Nom 05-09-05, 10:30 AM	In general, no. RAW, cones can only be aimed oriented at 90 degrees or 45 degrees to the battle grid. While I would allow a wizard to aim a cone at an arbitrary airborne target, I would not allow precision targeting of the kind suggested for targetting a wolf in the same square as a prone creature.
Seeker95 05-09-05, 11:51 AM	I'm with Nom on this one. What sounds cool and "reasonable" doesn't always translate well into game mechanics. Keep the game mechanics as primary, since screwing around with them tends to lead to munchkin abuse-attempts.
tarkin 05-09-05, 12:12 PM	Are you also not going to allow Humans to fire arrows over the heads of the Halfing in front of them? It seems to me to be basically the same thing. I personally would rule as follows: 1) You can not affect 1/2 a cube. Either the cube is fully affected or not at all. 2) The attack must start in a cube touching you. But that means that if you are 5' 1" (or taller), you can start the attack in mid air, in the cube at your head's level but 5ft ahead. This would in effect miss any small creature that was 5ft in front of you, but could descend (or not descend), depending on how exactly you pointed it. This allows some aiming, but not the major abuses. Your allies might drop Prone to avoid an attack, but then they would be PRONE. For the prone with beast case, I would let you do it only if the Beast was Large (tall)
stamhaven 05-09-05, 12:40 PM	I'm with tarkin on this one and use 5' cubes as lines of demarcation height wise. Aiming cones up also brings up if you consider the cone spells actual cones or just fans (flat wedges). If it was against standing humans I'd allow it but make the angle much narrower. To simulate aiming it more realisticly you aim the middle of the cone not with the edge, I use templates and make casters pick a square to center on beofre laying it down so they can't fine tune the area and waste valuable table time optimizing it. Something where you maintain the cone I would give much more control over the edge of detection spells and other things where you can see and adust.
Jason Snyder 05-09-05, 02:05 PM	I'm with you guys, actually. The question came up during the debate of what if you have to shoot up at a target - say a bad guy on a ledge high above you. If I understand the RAW, the elevation does not enter into it and the people between the caster and the villain, but below the villain would still get hit. While I'm not one to argue logic over rules, it just seems a bit extreme if you couldn't shoot at (for instance) a flying target without the cone hitting your friends who are on the ground with you.
DungeonMaster 05-09-05, 05:04 PM	I disagree with the others here to some extent. A cone spell is a cone, you should be able to aim it at any angle, regardless of the idea of squares in combat. If you aim a cone up at its inclination angle it would be effectively a line, perhaps a thick line if the cone is wide. Standardized areas on a grid are useful to the game but let's keep in mind it is a cone. Saving throws might be adjusted by +2 if it's easier to escape the area of effect. If a red dragon swoops from above and it aims it's breath weapon directly down, that's a circular area of destruction on the grid, like a fireball. In the particular case of wolves and a prone fighter, those had better be damn big wolves if you're not expecting to hit the fighter. I agree with Tarkin that Large (tall) would be required to do it and not harm the fighter at all. ( Large (tall) is a 3rd edition designator that doesn't exist in 3.5). If the player really wanted to risk it then I would allow it only with a ranged attack roll (unmodified AC of the wolves, he's trying to clip them effectively) and I'de adjust the saves of the wolves as well.
Vaelan 05-09-05, 05:26 PM	I allow things like this (this isn't a videogame, you can shoot a cone any direction you **** well please) with a successful Spellcraft check DC 15-25 + Spell Level. The base would depend on how difficult the aiming is. The player must also provide reasoning as to why they would be able to aim the spell to avoid the Fighter. In this case, I would say it would be about a 20+SL since the wolves are pretty close to the ground as well. In this case, I would say if you failed the check by more than 5, you aimed too high and thus affected nothing. If you failed the check by 5 or less, you aimed it too low and hit the Fighter along with the wolves. And since I'm a mean, mean person: if you fail the check by 10 or more, you accidentally affect yourself with the spell.
farscapesg1 05-09-05, 07:32 PM	I don't see a problem with angling the cone to only affect the wolves. Of course, I tend to look at the simpler answer and tell the fighter to close his eyes. If he can't see the color spray (blinded) then it can't affect him right ;)
Colmarr 05-09-05, 08:59 PM	DungeonMaster, just a quick post to let you know that Large (tall) still exists in v3.5. It has space of 10x10 and reach of 10ft (eg. Ogre). Large (long) has space 10x10 but reach of only 5ft (eg. Dire Wolf). As for the cone question, I would allow it with the spellcraft check. I treat cone spells as a circular pyramid rather than a two-dimensional plane, so the wizard would likely only hit one wolf anyway...
Nyat 05-09-05, 09:04 PM	Nobody has actually used a cone spell yet in my group, but I'm guessing we would allow it to be targeted up, since we allow fireballs and other spells to be used in such a fashion. If you can aim a cone up to hit a flying target, why shouldn't you be able to aim it upwards (or at an angle) in other situations? Although now that I look at it thats probably not RAW, but meh, thats how we would do it :D
IceFractal 05-10-05, 05:06 AM	I'd say that you can aim a cone at any angle, any other ruling seems silly, and too much like the bad side of video games (I like them, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the arbitrary limitations). However, the D&D system is still based around 5' cubes, so unless you want to try to houserule it, then any cube that the cone touches is fully affected.